In Part Two of the thread on Questions and Questionnaires, Theresa Sidebotham gives an overview of whether certain types of questions in employment pre-screening for missions are likely to implicate legal issues.

There has been a lot of back and forth about how the mission must take care during prefield screening not to run afoul of the ADA. I agree. Under the ADA, before you can give an applicant a “medical examination,” which includes most psychological screenings, you have to first consider all the non-medical information and hand out a conditional offer.

Many examining psychologists are not aware of the existence of 29 CFR § 1630.13, titled “Prohibited medical examinations and inquiries.” Even more importantly, section 1630.10, “Qualification standards, tests, and other selection criteria,” discusses the types of tests that can be used.

I see a number of legal issues around assessments. Some assessments are designed to give insight into personality or leadership styles. Those are fine. Others, like the MMPI, are designed to identify pathology. These raise a host of problems.

Between 1975 and 2005 I completed innumerable candidate assessments (I never counted them!). I was always pushed, at least in the beginnings of my relationships with a mission board, or when a new candidate person came on board, to tell them if the person should be a missionary, or not.

There are many potential ethical problems in mission for psychologists with professional licenses. And if you get caught up in these ethical problems, you may do real harm to people, you may be liable for malpractice, and you could lose your professional license.

As a mental health practitioners trying to help further the cause of missions, I will be looking at issues as they develop in the arenas of assessment, overseas behavior and treatment, and contexts where you find cross-cultural and organizational cultural issues. I also want to discuss how to work with missions in the most effective way, looking at specific kinds of assessments and the ministerial exception.I am hoping, Theresa, that I will surface issues that you may be able to speak to from a legal perspective.

Thanks, Theresa. I feel much better. The nice thing about social networking, more so than prayer sharing, is that there is usually a track, which can be reviewed. I have the following questions about the social network.

Brent, I agree your problem with GINA is now way bigger. In fact, you have defined a problem that pulls in HIPAA (because of confidential medical information) and the ADA (to the extent the person has a disability) as well!

My problem with GINA is way bigger than what I can do or say as a psychologist. We are a people of prayer. As people ask for prayers for themselves and/or for others they know, genetic data is spread all around the group.

GINA has nothing to do with what you do in private counseling practice. It applies to you when you are doing assessment for the employer. There are two ways for an employer to get in trouble with GINA.

All righty…there are so many issues here, and most of them are overwhelming to me. I have many questions about GINA as they relate to my consultation and therapeutic practices with mission agencies and their clients. I will list the topics...

GINA is 7 years old now, but she’s not a sweet little girl. The acronym stands for the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, passed in 2008, and it is intended to prevent employers from acquiring genetic information about employees and/or discriminating against them on that basis, particularly using that information in the hiring process. Sounds like a no-brainer. As we acquire more genetic information about ourselves, we don’t want it used against us.

Attorney Advertising D I S C L A I M E RP R I V A C Y P O L I C Y Because of the generality of the information on this site, it may not apply to a given place, time, or set of facts. It is not intended to be legal advice, and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.